Heufel v Page

[1979] FCA 60

I N TIIE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
-
1
NEW SOUTH WALES D I S T R I C T REGISTRY	) No. W G16 o f I 9 7 7

- 1

GENERU D I V I S I O N l

RE: JOAN IJEUFEI,

D e b t o r

EX PARTE: PETER PAGE

C r e d i t o r

- REIiSONS FOR JLTDG>iENT

JUDGE FUKTKG ORDER:	LOCKMART J .
I'EE E MADE :	SYDNEY
----	DATE OF ORDER:

THE COURT ORDERS -- THAT:

l. T h e zpp l ica t ion be d i s m i s s e d .

2. T h e bankrupt pay the cos t s of t h e pe t i t l on lng c r e d i t o r

of this a3plicaticn except the cos t s of the hearing

before R i l e y J. on 14 June 1978.

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA 1

NEW S ~ U T H WALES	DISTRICT REGISTRY	;	N O . W 616 01 1977
GENERAL DIVISION	1
-	1

!

RE : J O A N IIEUFEL

Debtor

EX PARTE: PETER PAGE

C r e d i t o r

LOCKHART J.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This i s an a p p l i c a t i o n by Joan Heufel ("the

bankrupt") f o r t he annulment of h e r bankruptcy. The ground

of t he n o t t o have a p p l i c a t i o n i s t h a t t h e s e q u e s t r a t i o n o r d e r ought

been made f o r t he reasons t h a t t h e bankrupt

was s o l v e n t a t t h e time i t was made and t h a t t h e d e b t ,

which t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r claimed t o be due t o him

by t h e bankrupt and 1%-hich Ivas t h e s u b j e c t o f a judgment

s i gned by the ~ e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r a g a i n s t t he bankrupt

i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court o f New South Wales, was never due

by t h e bankrupt t o t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r .

The a p p l i c a t i o n f o r annulment was f i l e d on I6

Flay I978 and llcard by t h e l a t e M r . J u s t i c e R i l ey on

I 4 June I978 when h i s Honour r e se rved h i s d e c i s i o n . H i s

Honour d i e d be fo re g i v i n g judgment. The a p p l i c a t i o n cane

' on f o r hea r ing b e f o r e me on 20 A p r i l 1979. I t

was agreed by a l l p a r t i e s -. namely t h e bankrupt , t h e

p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r , and t h e O f f i c i a l Receiver - t h a t

t h e hea r ing be fo re me should be a r e - h e a r i n g de novo o f

t he a p p l i c a t i o n as t h e r e s u l t o f i t would t u r n on the

c r e d i b i l i t y of t he bankrupt and o f t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r .

The O f f i c i a l Receiver p layed no a c t i v e r o l e i n t he

proceedings be fo re me i n view o f t he ground of t h e a p p l i c a t i o n .

The s e q u e s t r a t i o n o rde r was made a g a i n s t t h e

bankrupt on 28 September 1977. She l i v e s and then l i v e d

a t I17 McKellar	Crescen t ,	Cook	i n t h e A u s t r a l i a n	C a p i t a l
T e r r i t o r y .

The on ly a s s e t d i s c l o s e d by t h e bankrupt i n h e r

s ta tement of a f f a i r s was a motor v e h i c l e which she

desc r ibed a s "Datsun fo l lows: -

Sedan $ 4 , ~ 0 0 . 0 0

Less amount owing under h i r e

purchase agreement t o

I n d u s t r i a l Acceptance	Corp.
Limited

The on ly money brought t o t h e c r e d i t o f t h e e s t a t e

account was t h e d e p o s i t p a i d on the p e t i t i o n o f $20.00.

The only unsecured c r e d i t o r d i s c l o s e d by t h e

bankrupt i n h e r s t a t emen t o f a f f a i r s was t h e p e t i t i o n i n g

c r e d i t o r f o r a deb t o f $300.00. The a p p l i c a n t a l s o r e f e r r e d

t o I n d u s t r i a l Acceptance Corporat ion Limited, t he h i r e

purchase	c r e d i t o r .	I t s deb t was	subsequent ly r e p a i d by	the
bankrupt.

I The on ly c r e d i t o r who lodged a c la im i n t he

e s t a t e i s t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r f o r $914.00. That

c l a i m ' h a s n o t	been	admit ted	t o proof	by	t h e O f f i c i a l
Receiver.

Am amount of $214.85 i s owing t o t he o f f i c i a l

r e c e i v e r i n r e s p e c t of f e e s i n c u r r e d i n t h e course of

a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e e s t a t e of t h e bankrupt .

The bankrupt i s a s i n g l e l ady . She is and was

a t t h e d a t e of her bankruptcy employed a s a s u p e r v i s o r a t

t h e "Quamby" Remand S h e l t e r , Red H i l l i n t h e A u s t r a l i a n

C a p i t a l	T e r r i t o r y .
The bankrupt and t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r e n t e r e d
i n t o an	arrangement i n 1 9 7 5 whereby t h e bankrupt would

s e l l r i n g s made by t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r c d i t o r f o r which she

would be al lowed a commission on s a l e s .	This arrangement
ceased some time i n 1976.

The p e t i t i o n i n g c r c d i t o r subsequent ly sued t h e

bankrupt by o rd ina ry s t a t emen t of c la im i n t he

D i s t r i c t Court o f New South Wales a t Sydney c la iming

$1,282.00 and c o s t s . The p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r p leaded h i s

cause of a c t i o n i n t h e s t a t emen t o f c la im a s fo l lows: -

11 I . That t h e Defendant ob t a ined from t h e

P l a i n t i f f h i s goods namely:-

6 yel low gold r i n g s w i th whi te s o l i d s (9c t ) $395.60

9 dark opal r i n g s $283.00

I i m i t a t i o n aquamarine r i n g 4.00 $682.00

And t h e P l a j n t i f f c la ims t h e r e t u r n o f t h e s a l e

goods o r t h c i r va lue .

. . . /4

-11-- --- - - - _ _ ._. __ ____ . __-_ "____I ___-_.._ __. a?. l

2. Tha t t h e P l a i n t i f f f u r t h e r c l a i m s t h e

sum of S i x hundred d o l l a r s ($600.00) f o r

money p a y a b l e by t h e Defendant t o t h e

P l a i n t i f f f o r money had and r e c e i v e d by

t h e Defendant f o r t h e u s e o f t h e P l a i n t i f f .

./

AND t h e P l a i n t i f f c l a i m s t h e sum o f $1282.00."

The b a n k r u p t d i d n o t d e i e n d t h e p r o c e e d i n g s .

Judgment was o b t a i n e d by t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r a g a i n s t

t h e b a n k r u p t on 6 A p r i l I977 i n t h e s e t e r m s : -

" I T I S THIS DAY ADJUDGED THAT:

I . The p l a i n t i f f r e c o v e r a g a i n s t t h c

d e f e n d a n t $1,018.00 b e i n g $418.00 a s v a l u e

o f poods d e t a i n e d and $600.00 f o r d e b t ,

p l u s c o s t s o f $160.00.

2. The d e f e n d a n t pay $ J , I 7 8 . 0 0 t o t h e

R e g i s t r a r f o r t h w i t h .

5. On d c l i v e r y t o t h e p l a i n t i f f and

a c c e p t a n c e by him o f t h e f o l l o w i n g goods :

6 yellov: g o l d r i n g s , v a l u e d a t $395.00

and t h r e e d a r k o p a l r i n g s , v a l u c d a t $23.00

on o r b e f o r e t h e 4 t h May, 1977, t h c

judgment d e b t s h a l l deemed t o be s a t i s f i e d t o t h e

e x t e n t o f $418.00."

The p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r a p p l i e d f o r t h e i s s u e

o f a b a n k r u p t c y n o t i c e on 20 May 1977. The b a n k r u p t n o t i c e

was i s s u e d on 27 May I977 and s e r v e d on t h e b a n k r u p t on 2 J u n c

1977. The b a n k r u p t f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s

o f t h e b a n k r u p t c y n o t i c e o r t o t a k e any s t e p s t o s a t i s f y

t h e c o u r t t h a t s h e had a c o u n t e r - c l a i m , s e t - o f f o r c r o s s

demand	e q u a l	t o o r e x c e e d i n g - t h e	sum	specified	i n	t h e	b a n k r u p t c : ~
n o t i c e .

I n t h e r e s u l t she committed an a c t o f bankruptcy.

She made no a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e c o u r t t o s e t a s i d e t h e

bankruptcy n o t i c e .

The p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t a r p re sen ted a p e t i t i o n

1'

t o t h e c o u r t on I 9 J u l y I 9 7 7 which came on f o r hea r ing

on 2 8 September I 9 7 7 when a s e q u e s t r a t i o n o r d e r was made

a g a i n s t t h e e s t a t e o f t h e bankrupt . The bankrupt d i d n o t

appear on t h e h e a r i n g of t h e p e t i t i o n o r i i l e a n o t i c e o i

oppos i t i on t o Thc power t o annul a bankruptcy i s confer red by t h e p e t i t i o n o r o therwise oppose i t .

S . I 5 4 ( I ) of t he Act. That s e c t i o n p rov ides t h a t where

t h e c o u r t o r d e r ought n o t t o have been made, i s s a t i s f i c d , i n t e r a l i a , t h a t a s e q u e s t r a t i o n

t h e c o u r t may make an

o r d e r annul ing t h e bankruptcy. There a r e two m a t t e r s f o r

t h e c o u r t t o cons ide r under t he s e c t i o n : f i r s t , whether

a s e q u e s t r a t i o n o r d e r ought n o t t o have been made and

secondly, i f t h e c o u r t i s s a t i s f i e d a s t o t h a t , whether i n

t h e e x e r c i s e ought t o bemade. o f t he c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n the o r d e r o f annulment

See Delph Sing v. Wood (1918) 25 C.L.R. 4 9 7

a t p. 4 9 8 ; Re W i l l i a a s ( 1 9 6 8 ) I 3 F.L.R. I 0 a t p . 2 3 ; - Re

Deriu ( 1 9 7 0 ) The bankrupt concedcs I 6 F.L.R. 4 2 0 .

t h a t i t i s f o r h e r , a s t he

a p p l i c a n t f o r annulment, t o s a t i s f y t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e

s e q u e s t r a t i o n o rde r oucht n o t t o have been made: See Re S c o t t

( 1 9 7 5 ) 6 A .L .R . 5 5 8 ; Re Calderon (an unrepor ted d e c i s i o n o f

R i l ey J . , judgment d e l i v e r e d 3 1 Jlay 1 9 7 7 ) .

In determining whcther t h e s e q u e s t r a t i o n o r d e r ought

n o t t o have been made t h e c o u r t may cons ide r n o t on ly t h e

evidence as d i s c l o s e d a t t h e t ime t h e o r d e r was made,

b u t a s it would have been d i s c l o s e d had a l l t h e t r u e i a c t s

been be fo re t he c o u r t on t h e making o f t h e s e q u e s t r a t i o n

o r d e r : See Re Cook (1946) I 3 A . B . C . 245 a t p. 259.

This c o u r t h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o go behind t h e judgment

of t he whether i t was founded on a r e a l deb t : c o u r t where t h e judgment was s igned and t o i n q u i r e

See Corney v. Br ien

(1951) 84 C . L . R . 343 and Wren v . Mahony (1971-1972) I26 C . L . R .

2 1 2 ; Boaler v . Power (1910) 2 K . B . 229.

If t h e c o u r t i s s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e s e q u e s t r a t i o n o r d e r

ought n o t t o have been madc it i s n o t bound t o annul t h e o r d e r ;

b u t must cons ide r i n t h e l i g h t of a l l t h e c i rcumstances o f t h e

ca se whether t he bankruptcy ought t o be annu l l ed : See Delph

Sing v. Wood (supra) a t pp. 498-499; Re Lawson (1939) I 1 A . B . C .

I37 a t p . 139; Re Will iams ( supra) a t p . 23.

I t u r n t o t h e f i r s t q u e s t i o n , whether , on t h e ev idence ,

t h e bankrupt o r d e r ought n o t t o have has s a t i s f i e d t h e c o u r t t h a t t h e s e q u e s t r a t i o n

been made.

I f i n d t h e f a c t s a s fo l lows: -

Thc p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r i s an i n v a l i d pens ione r who

a t a l l m a t e r i a l t imes has made j ewe l l e ry i nc lud ing opa l r i n g s

i n h i s s p a r e t ime. He f i r s t met t he bankrupt i n I973 o r I974

through h e r mother who l i v e d ar. Punchbowl, New South Wales. The

two met a t t h e mother ' s home on a few occas ions . They e n t e r e d

i n t o a v c r b a l arrangement whereby t h e banrkupt would t ake

j ewe l l e ry from the p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r f o r s a l c and, from

the proceeds o f s a l e , she would be pa id a sum o f money a s

commission. I t was envisaged t h a t she would s e l l t h e j ewe l l e ry

among people i n Canberra h o s p i t a l where she was then working.

The bankrupt gave t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r

s i x o r d e r s f o r F i r s t o r d e r : j e w e l l e r y on t h e fo l lowing d a t e s : -

about 7 J u l y 1 9 7 4 .

Second o r d e r : 2 1 October I 9 7 4

Thi rd o r d e r : 30 June I 9 7 5

Four th o r d e r : 5 J u l y I 9 7 5

F i f t h o r d e r : 3 November I 9 7 5

S i x t h o r d e r : I 7 Novembcr 1 9 7 5 .

The bankrupt p a i d f o r t h e j e w e l l e r y compriscd

i n t he f i r s t f o u r o r d e r s . The p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r has n o t

r ece ived payment f o r any of t h e j e w e l l e r y comprised i n t he

f i f t h and s i x t h o r d e r s .

On 3 November I 9 7 5 t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r and the

bankrupt Inet a t t h e Punchbowl home of t h e b a n k r u p t ' s mother,

and the p e t i t i o n i n g c r c d i t o r asked t h e bankrupt ii she

would l i k e t o t a k e t h e money then from e a r l i e r s a l e s by way

o f commission t o which she r e p l i e d "No, d o n ' t g i v e t h e money.

Put i t towards t h a t s apph i r e r i n g which I w i l l t ake" . There

was a r i n g a t t h e f l a t be ing a s apph i r e r i n g which she i n d i c a t e d

she wished t o buy, and the p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r t hen h e l d i t on

h e r b e h a l f . On 3 November I 9 7 5 t h e bankrupt gave an o r d e r ( t h e

f i f t h o r d e r )	t o	t h e	p e t i t i o n i n g	c r e d i t o r	f o r	t h e	fo l l owing
j e w e l l e r y : -

I whi te ye l low go ld o p a l $ 8 5 . 0 0

I	whi te	ye l low	gold	o p a l	8 5 . 0 0
I	whi te	ye l low	gold	o p a l	7 5 . 0 0

3 whi te ye l low gold opa l s a t $ 5 0 . 0 0 e a . 1 5 0 . 0 0

I dark opa l r i n g 2 0 . 0 0

I	dark opa l r i n g
2	dark opa l r i n g s a t $ 1 9 . 0 0 e a .
5	dark opa l r i n g s a t $ 4 0 . 0 0 e a .
I	i m i t a t i o n aqua marine r i n g

Thc bankrupt s a i d t o t h e p e t i t i o n i n g creditor:-

"I am going back t o Canberra tomorrow morning, can

you b r i n g them down and have them t h e r e i n t he morning?".

The p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r s a i d : -

"Yes I w i l l do t h a t " .

The fo l lowing day t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r took t h e

j ewe l l e ry dokm t o Canberra t o g e t h e r w i t h a book, being a form

o f o r d e r book, and asked h c r t o s i g n it t o acknowledge r e c e i p t

o f t he s i x t c e n r i n g s comprised i n t h e o r d e r . She d i d t h i s . The

j ewe l l e ry was then handed t o h e r .

The f o l i o of t h e o r d e r book s igned by t h e banlirupt i s

a t f o l i o 1 4 .

On 1 7 November I 9 7 5 t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r s e n t t o t h e

bankrupt , by means o f Comet Overnight Transpor t ("Comet") t h e

j ewe l l e ry comprised i n a s i x t h o r d e r be ing : -

6 opa l r i n g s a t $ 4 5 . 0 0 e a . $ 2 7 0 . 0 0

7 opa l pendants a t $ 6 . 5 0 e a . 4 5 . 5 0

I opa l r i n g a t $ 8 0 . 0 0 whi te 8 0 . 0 0

5 opa l r i n g s a t $ 2 5 . 0 0 e a . 1 2 5 . 0 0

2 s apph i r e r i n g s a t $ 1 3 0 . 0 0 e a . 2 6 0 . 0 0 $ 7 8 0 . 5 0

The o rde r appears on f o l i o I 5 o f t h e o r d e r book. Comet

p icked up t h e j ewe l l e ry from t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r i n Sydney

I

about 3 . 0 0 p.m. I t was a l l wrapped and bound. Comet

s igned a docket acknowledging r e c e i p t of the goods bu t

t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r cannot f i n d it a l though he h a s

searched f o r i t and made i n q u i r i e s from Comet i t s e l f .

Comet could n o t f i n d a r eco rd o f t h e d e l i v e r y a s it was

i n t h e p roces s o f s h i f t i n g premises and adopt ing computer

programmes a t t h e t ime o f t h e i n q u i r y . No payment was

r ece ived by t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r from the bankrupt f o r

t h e j ewe l l e ry comprised i n t h e f i f t h and s i x t h o r d e r s , nor

was t h e i n s t r u c t e d h i s j ewe l l e ry comrpised t h e r e i n r e t u r n e d t o him; s o he

s o l i c i t o r s t o w r i t e a l e t t e r t o t h e bankrupt ,

which they d i d on 29 March 1 9 7 6 . That l e t t e r r eques t ed t h e

r e t u r n o f t h e j ewe l l e ry , being t h e j ewe l l e ry comrpised i n

t h e f i f t h o r d e r and having an invo ice va lue o f $ 6 8 2 . 0 0 . The

l e t t e r asked t h e bankrupt t o r e t u r n those r i n g s w i t h i n t e n

days from the d a t e of t h e l e t t e r o therwise l e g a l proceedings

would be i n s t i t u t e d .

The bankrupt d i d n o t r e t u r n any j ewe l l e ry t o t he

p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r nor d i d she make any payments of

money t o him o r g e t i n touch wi th him o r h i s s o l i c i t o r s .

The s o l i c i t o r s f o r t he p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r i s s u e d an

o r d i n a r y s t a t emen t of c la im o u t of t h e D i s t r i c t Court o f

New South Wales a t Sydney on 1 7 September I 9 7 6 c la iming

$ 1 2 8 2 . 0 0 from t h e bankrupt. I have a l r e a d y s e t o u t t h e

m a t e r i a l terms of t h a t document. The s ta terncnt o f c la im

was se rved upon t h e bankrupt by a p roces s s e r v e r . The

bankrupt says t h a t t h e p roces s s e r v e r s a i d t o h e r : -

"Have you s t i l l g o t t h e r ings?" .

To which she s a i d :

. . . / I 0

"Yes, b u t I o b j e c t e d t o t h e c la im f o r t h e

e x t r a $600.00. I d o n ' t know what t h a t ' s fo r" .

To which he r e p l i e d :

"Why d o n ' t you j u s t send back the r ings" .

The bankrupt den ies t h a t she had any knowledge a t any

t ime o f	a c la im f o r $600.00.
The p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r says t h a t t h e l e t t e r

from h i s s o l i c i t o r o f 2 9 lrlarch I976 conta ined an e r r o r i n

t h a t it desc r ibed 3 r i n g s a s having a va lue o f 504 each,

whereas i n f a c t i t should have been $50.00 cach, thus making

a c o r r e c t t o t a l o f $682.00.

The p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r says t h a t t h e c la im

f o r $600.00 i s t h e va lue o f t he j ewe l l e ry comprising t h e

s i x t h o r d e r l e s s $180.00 be ing t h e f i n a l commission which

he says comprised i n t h e f i f t h and i s due t o t h e bankrupt f o r a l l t h e j ewe l l e ry

s i x t h o r d e r s . He den ie s t h a t hc

i s indebted t o t h e bankrupt f o r any commission whatever.

There was a hea r ing by t h e D i s t r i c t Court a t Sydney on

6 A p r i l	I977	a s t o t h e	damages	claimed by	the p e t i t i o n i n g
c r e d i t o r .

The bankrupt decided t o r e t u r n c e r t a i n r i n g s t o

t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r . She r e t u r n e d , by c e r t i f i e d mai l

from Canberra t o Sydney, seven r i n g s comprised i n t h e

f i f t h o r d e r and having an invo ice va lue of $264.00. These

were d i r e c t e d t o t he p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r a t an address which

was n o t h i s bu t c l o s e t o i t . Someone, perhaps a neighbour ,

brought t he p a r c e l t o t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r ' s home one

evening some few days a f t e r they had been s e n t by t h e

bankrupt from Canberra by p o s t . A t t h e hea r ing b e f o r c

t he l k a r n e d D i s t r i c t Court judge, c r e d i t was g iven t o t h e

bankrupt i n t h c sum o f $ 2 6 4 . 0 0 a g a i n s t t h e c la im f o r $ 6 8 2 . 0 0

i n t h e f i r s t count , w i th t h e r e s u l t t h a t t h e judgment was

s igned a g a i n s t t h e bankrupt f o r $ 4 1 8 . 0 0 on the f i r s t count and

$ 6 0 0 . 0 0 " f o r debt" p l u s c o s t s of $ 1 6 0 . 0 0 , a t o t a l o f $ 1 1 7 8 . 0 0 .

No j ewe l l e ry has been r e t u r n c d by t h e bankrupt t o

t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r subsequent ly .

By l e t t e r da t ed 2 4 February I 9 7 8 from the O f f i c i a l

Receiver t o t h e bankrupt he s a i d t o h e r t h a t he had i s s u e d

i n s t r u c t i o n s t o "Cent ra l Auctions t o t a k e posses s ion of your

motor v e h i c l e . You a r e t o co-opera te w i th a du ly a u t h o r i s e d

representative o f t h e company when he c a l l s t o t a k e posses s ion

o f t h e veh ic le" .

I t was t h e sending of t h a t l e t t e r and t h e t h r e a t t o

r eposscs s h e r motor c a r t h a t i n my opln ion caused t h e

bankrupt t o apply t o t h e c o u r t on I 6 May I 9 7 8 f o r an o r d e r

a n n u l l i n g h e r bankruptcy.

I have found the f a c t s e s s e n t i a l l y i n accordance wi th

t h c evidcnce of t he p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r .

Doubtless it would be s u f f i c i e n t f o r me t o say

t h a t it i s f o r t h e bankrupt t o prove t o t h e c o u r t ' s s a t i s -

f a c t i o n t h a t t h e s e q u e s t r a t i o n o r d e r ought n o t t o have been

made, and t h a t she has n o t d i scharged t h a t onus, which i n

my opin ion she has n o t . However, I have reachcd a f i r m view

a s t o bankrupt , being t h e two wi tnes ses who t h e r e l i a b i l i t y of t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r and the

have evidence i n t h e

c a s e , and I p r e f e r t o d e a l w i th t h c case on t h a t b a s i s .

There i s a c o n f l i c t o f evidence between t h e

p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r and t h e bankrupt on impor tan t

q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t i n t h e case . Ne i the r w i tnes s had a

vc ry c l e a r r e c o l l e c t i o n o f some of t h e r e l e v a n t e v e n t s ,

and t h e r e a r e i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n t he evidence of each of

them. However, I have reached t h e conc lus ion t h a t t h e

evidence of t he p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r i s t o be p r e f e r r e d t o

t h a t o f t h e bankrupt . I accep t t he p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r

a s a w i tnes s t o t h a t o f o f accuracy and t r u t h and I p r e f e r h i s evidence

t h e bankrupt where they c o n f l i c t .

The bankrupt was emphatic i n h e r evidence t h a t t he

j ewe l l e ry d e l i v e r e d t o h e r i n Canberra by Comet was t h e

j ewe l l e ry comprised i n t h e f i f t h , n o t t h e s i x t h o r d e r ;

t h a t she knows no th ing whatever about t he s i x t h o r d e r o r

t h e j ewe l l e ry comprised i n i t ; and t h a t when she r e t u r n e d

j ewe l l e ry t o t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r , by c e r t i f i e d mai l on

2 8 March 1977, she r e t u r n e d a l l t h e r i n g s ob ta ined from the

p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r i n h e r posses s ion and t h a t t hey were

r e t u r n e d by h e r i n two r i n g boxes bo th p laced i n a p o s t o f f i c e

j i f f y bag. These a r e some o f t h e p r i n c i p a l a r e a s o f c o n f l i c t

between the evidence o f t h e two wi tnes ses .

Although I have reached my conc lus ion a s t o t h e

r e l i a b i i i t y o f t h e w i tnes ses t o somc e x t e n t on t h e i r

demeanor and manner o f g i v i n g evidence i n t h e w i tnes s box,

I have c i rcumstances and documents. r e l i e d a l s o on t h e contcmporaneous and o b j e c t i v e

I t i s t o t h e s e t h a t I now t u r n .

F i r s t , no twi ths tanding t h a t t he bankrupt rece ived

the l e t t e r of demand from t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r ' s s o l i c i t o r

da tcd 2 9 March I976 r e q u i r i n g t h e r e t u r n o f j ewe l l e ry and

t h r e a t e n i n g l e g a l proceedings u n l e s s they were r e t u r n e d , she

d i d no th ing about i t . A D i s t r i c t Court s t a t emen t o f c la im

was se rved on h e r l a t e r . Again she d i d no th ing about i t

u n t i l she r ece ived some n o t i f i c a t i o n probably a n o t i f i c a t i o n

from t h e r e g i s t r a r o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court t o h e r t h a t t h c

a c t i c n was s e t down f o r t h e assessment o f damagcs. What she

then d i d was t o r e t u r n c e r t a i n of t h e r i n g s i n h e r posses s ion

i n March 1977. She d i d n o t defend t h e proceedings

n o r d i d she subsequent ly make an a p p l i c a t i o n t o s e t a s i d e t h e

judgment .

The bankruptcy n o t i c e was se rved upon h e r on 2 June

1977, y e t she d i d no th ing about i t . The p e t i t i o n was se rved

on h e r on 28 J u l y 1977. Again, no th ing was done by h e r by

way o f p e t i t i o n o r o therwise . appear ing , f i l i n g a n o t i c e o f c p p o s i t i o n t o t h e

I t was n o t u n t i l t h e O f f i c i a l

Receiver t h r ea t ened t o t a k e posses s ion of h e r v e h i c l e ,

h e r most s u b s t a n t i a l a s s e t , t h a t she d i spu ted t h e c l a im

o f t h e annulment. p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r by f i l i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r

Evidence was l e d t h a t she was n o t a woman who had

r e c e i v e d formal educa t ion t o an advanced l e v e l , and t h a t

from February I974 u n t i l March I976 she was preoccupied and

d i s t r e s s e d by matr imonial problems and proceedings which were

then pending i n t h e Family Court of Canberra. Shc l e f t h e r

husband i n February I974 i n harrowing c j rcumstances and

towards t h e middle o f I974 began t o s u f f e r a s eve re form o f

migraine headaches and was receiving medical t r ea tmen t from

a Canberra n c u r o l o g i s t . She was admi t ted t o h o s p i t a l f o r

t rea tment i n October and November 1975. She was g r a n t e d a

d ivroce i n t h e Family Court of Canberra on 11 March 1976.

She says t h a t w i t h t h e problems of h e r marr iage and h e a l t h

t he q u e s t i o n of t h e r i n g s s l i p p e d h e r mind. She says t h a t

du r ing t h e months of September, October and November I976

she had a r ecu r r ence of t h e headaches and aga in r ece ived

t r ea tmen t from t h e Canberra n e u r o l o g i s t .

This i s n o t a case where t h e bankrupt says t h a t

because o f h e r matr imonial problems and s i c k n e s s du r ing

t h e r e l e v a n t p e r i o d , she simply pa id no r ega rd whatever

t o t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r . Rather she s ays t h a t she

thought "once t h e wheels o f motion had s t a r t e d , I had

r e t u r n e d t h e r i n g s and I thought once t h e wheels o f motion

had s t a r t e d they had t o complete t h e i r c y c l e b e f o r e it cou ld

be taken o u t aga in ... once you had s t a r t e d a proceeding l i k e

M r . Page hacl t o be completed be fo re it could be Zischarged." had t o have me d e c l a r e d bankrupt , I thought t h a t i t

So she

was a t l e a s t aware t h a t proceedings had been taken by t h e

p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r a g a i n s t h e r and thought about them.

No t t i i t h s t and i~ lg t h e s e m a t t e r s , and t h e f a c t t h a t

some people , when se rved wi th l e g a l p roces s , f e e l a t a l o s s

and do n o t know how t o cope w i t h i t , I do n o t accep t t h a t

t h e s i l e n c e from t h e bankrupt , which rcn~a ined u n t i l t h e

posses s ion o f h e r c a r was th rea t ened i n February 1978, i s

exp la ined by t h e m a t t e r s t o which she r e f e r r e d .

Secondly, t he r e l e v a n t contemporaneous r eco rds suppor t

t h e case of t he pe t j t i on 'ng - c r e d i t o r . He k e p t h i s o rdc r book

which ' recorded , amongst o t h e r t h i n g s , o r d e r s lodged by

t h e bankrupt w i t h him. I t i s a somewhat in formal book,

n o t t he s o r t of book t h a t would be k e p t by someone i n

b u s i n e s s ; bu t t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r was a man who made

r i n g s and o t h e r j ewe l l e ry a s a form of occupa t iona l therapy

i n h i s spa re time a f t e r he became an i n v a l i d pens ione r . I t

r eco rds on f o l i o 1 4 , t h e lodgmont of t h e o r d e r on 3 November

I975 by the bankrupt . I t a l s o r eco rds t h e acknowledgn~ent by

h e r o f h e r r e c e i p t of t hose r i n g s . I t records t h e o r d e r

lodged on I 7 November I 9 7 5 f o r j ewe l l e ry having an invo ice

va lue of $780.00. The r e l e v a n t docket on f o l i o I 5 r eco rds

t h a t t h e r e was a ru sh c r d e r by Comet, p icked up a t 3.00 p.m.

Although some a t t a c k was made on the a u t h e n t i c i t y o f t h e s e

o r d e r forms, I am s a t i s f i e d t h a t they a r e r e l i a b l e

contemporaneous documents r eco rd ing t h e r e l e v a n t o r d e r s . For

t h e bankrup t ' s c a s e t o succeed I would have t o be s a t i s f i e d

t h a t t h e o rde r recorded a s being lodged on I7 November I975

[the s i x t h o rde r ) was a f a b r i c a t i o n by t h e p e t i t i o n i n g

c r e d i t o r .	In my	op in ion ,	t h e evidence does n o t war ran t	such a
conc lus ion .

I t i s t r u e t h a t t h e bankrupt d i d n o t s i g n t h e o r d e r

form acknovrledging r e c e i p t o f t h e s i x t h o r d e r ; b u t I accep t

t he p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r when he says t h a t t h i s was s e n t a s

a ru sh o rde r t o Canberra by means o f Comet. Although it i s

perhaps a l i t t l e cu r ious t h a t t h e r e were no documents from

Colaet t endered i n ev idcnce , r eco rd ing t h e d e l i v e r y t o t h e

bankrupt i n Canberra, t h e evidence a s t o Comet l eav ing wi th

t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r t h e docket book r eco rd ing t h e r e c e i p t

o f t he goods by Comet was given by t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r and

I accep t p e t i t i o n i n g i t a s t r u t h f u l i n c l u d i n g t h e ev idence of t h e

c r e d i t o r a s t o h i s i n a b i l i t y t o f i n d t h e Comet

docket book. I t i s t r u e t h a t , on t he evidence o f t h e

p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r , he wanted t o o b t a i n from t h e bankrupt

h e r s i g n a t u r e acknowledging r e c e i p t o f t he f i f t h o r d e r f o r

more than one r ea son ; y e t he ob t a ined no such s igned r e c e i p t

from h e r when t h e s i x t h o r d e r was d e l i v e r e d about a f o r t n i g h t

l a t e r . I n my op in ion t h i s i s exp la ined by t h e p e t i t i o n i n g

c r e d i t o r ' s evidence a s t o t h c o r d e r be ing a rush o r d e r .

T h i r d l y , t he bankrupt was emphatic t h a t she r e t u r n e d

a l l t h e r i n g s i n h e r pos se s s ion by c e r t i f i e d mai l on 28 March

1977, t h a t t hey were i n t ~ o boxes, t h a t t he r i n g s were p l aced

i n t o t h e s l o t s i n t h e boxes and t h e r e was a f l o a t i n g r i n g i n

each box because t h e r e were n o t enough s l o t s f o r each o f t h e

r i n g s . Yet t h e bankrupt could n o t i d e n t i f y any p a r t i c u l a r

r i n g o r swear t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r i n g s comprised i n t h e

f i f t h o r d e r were n o t t h e ones comprised i n the s i x t h o rde r .

Herexplana t ion i s t h a t she i s c e r t a i n t h a t she never a t any

t ime r e c e i v e d j e w e l l e r y c o n s i s t i n g of an opa l pendant o r

s apph i r e r i n g s , t he se be ing inc luded i n t h e s i x t h o r d e r .

The p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r , when asked by t h e p o s t master

o f t he Bankstown p o s t o f f i c e about t he p a r c e l which was s e n t

t o him by t h e benkrupt , wrote a l e t t e r s ay ing t h a t what he

r ece ived on about 30 March 1977, were seven r i n g s t o t h e

va lue o f $264.00. This evidence i s c o n s i s t e n t w i th t h e n o t e

made by acknowledging r e c e i p t on 30 March I977 o f seven r i n g s . t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r on t h e yel low copy of f o l i o I 3

Also,

when t h e assessment of damages came b e f o r e t h e l e a r n e d D i s t r i c t

Court judge on 6 A p r i l 1977, t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r gave

I - 1 7 -

evidence t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t he had r ece ived those r i n g s from

t h e bankrupt , thus reducing' h i s c la im on the f i r s t count

I

from $682.00 t o $418.00, a d i f f e r e n c e o f $264.00.

Four th ly , t h e bankrupt acknowledged a t t h e

commencement of t he proceedings be fo re me t h a t she was

indebted t o some e x t e n t i n r e s p c c t of t h c f i f t h o r d e r , b u t

n o t t o an e x t e n t s u f f i c i e n t t o found a s e q u e s t r a t i o n o r d e r

($500.00). This ackno~clcdgment i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h h e r

ve r s ion o f t h e f a c t s , because she says t h a t she r e t u r n e d

t o t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r on 28 March I 9 7 7 a l l t h e r i n g s

i n h e r posses s ion which she had n o t s o l d and t h a t she owed him

no th ing

t h e r e a f t e r .

Notwithstanding h e r acknowledgment o f some

indebtedness t o t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r i n r e s p e c t o f t h e

f i f t h o r d e r , she has made no o f f e r t o pay i t , a l though i n

h e r a f f i d a v i t sworn on 2 May I978 she deposed t o t h e f a c t

t h a t h e r s o l i c i t o r s p r e s e n t l y ho ld t h e sum o f $1500.00 i n t h e i r

t r u s t account .

These a r e t h e p r i n c i p a l o b j e c t i v e m a t t e r s which I

r e l y upon t o found my conclusion t h a t i t i s t h e evidence of

t he p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r t h a t I p r e f e r t o t h a t o f t h e bankrupt.

I should add t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r was c r o s s

examined a s t o why t h e l e t t e r of demand irom h i s s o l i c i t o r

o f 29 March I976 and t h e D i s t r i c t Court s t a t emen t of c la im make

no r e f e r e n c e s t a t emen t of t o t h e r i n g s comprising t h e s i x t h o r d e r , y e t t h e

c la im c la ims $600.00 a s being "money payable by

t h e defendant t o t h e p l a i n t i f f f o r money had and r cce ivcd by

t h e dcfendant f o r t he use of t hc p l a i n t i f f " . I t was suggested

t o t h e p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r t h a t t h i s was i n c o n s i s t e n t w i th

with h i s c la im t h a t t h e r e was a s i x t h o r d e r and t h a t t h e

r i n g s comprised t h e r e i n had been d e l i v e r e d t o t he bankrupt

and n o t r e t u r n e d by h e r t o him. The evidence of t h c

p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r i n exp lana t ion o f t h i s was n o t

e n t i r e l y s a t i s f a c t o r y . A t one p o i n t i n h i s c r o s s

examination he s a i d t h a t hc unders tood from conve r sa t ions

wi th t h e bankrupt t h a t t h e r i n g s "had been s e n t and l o s t

i n t h e truck" and "shc t o l d me they g o t l o s t " . Yet he

s a i d towards t h e end of h i s c r o s s examination t h a t t h e

bankrupt t o l d him t h a t she had a cheque f o r $600.00 which

she t o l d him had g o t l o s t i n t he t r u c k . The p e t i t i o n i n g

c r e d i t o r s a i d t h a t he l e f t t h e q u e s t i o n of what should be

demanded from t h e bankrupt and recovered from h e r i n c o u r t

t o h i s s o l i c i t o r . No doubt t h e r e i s more than one

exp lana t ion a s t o why t h e l e t t e r o f demand and t h e s t a t emen t

of c la im i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court were d r a f t e d t h c way they

were; and probably i t i s c o n s i s t c n t w i th t h e p e t i t i o n i n g

c r e d i t o r ' s cvidence a s t o t h e l o s t cllequc t h a t they were

so d r a f t e d . Also t h e r e i s i n t h e evidence a n o t i c e o f demand

f o r d e t e n t i o n o f goods i s s u e d o u t of t h e Bankstown Court o f

P e t t y Sess ions on beha l f of t h e bankrupt on I6 August 1976

c la iming d e l i v e r y up of " the undermentioned goods, t o wit:-

6 yellow gold r i n g s w i th whi te s o l i d s ( 9 c t ) .

9 dark $600.00 i n cash opa l r l n g s

I i m i t a t i o n aquamarine r i n g

"

Although t h i s a spec t o f t h e ca se t roub led me t o

somc e x t e n t , I am s a t i s f i e d t h a t t he p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r

has a t a l l m a t e r i a l t imes demanded from t h e bankrupt , n o t

on ly t h e r e t u r n o f t h e r i n g s comprised i n t he f i f t h

o r d e r , b u t $600.00 i n c a s h ; and t h a t t h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t

w i t h t h e banrkupt having t o l d him, and she has n o t denied

i t , t h a t o r d e r and t h a t a cheque she had s o l d t h e r i n g s t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e s i x t h

f o r $600.00 had been l o s t .

The p e t i t i o n i n g c red i to i - exp la ined t h e sum o f

$600.00, i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e sum of $780.00 t h e s u b j e c t

o f t h e t h e sum o f $780.00 l e s s t h e commission s i x t h o r d e r , on t h e b a s i s t h a t i t r e p r e s e n t e d

t o which she was

e n t i t l e d on t h e f o o t i n g t h a t she s o l d t h e r i n g s . Hence

he a l lowed i n h e r favour a c r e d i t o f a d i f f e r e n c e of $180.00

no twi ths t and ing t h a t t h e r e i s no r e f e r e n c e t o t h e sum o f

$180.00 commission i n h i s i nvo ice book. I t fo l lows from rillat I have s a i d t h a t I am

s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e s e q u e s t r a t i o n o r d e r was p r o p e r l y made.

I f I had reached t h e conc lus ion t h a t t h e

s e q u e s t r a t i o n o r d e r ought n o t t o have been made, and were

then t o cons ide r t h e second q u e s t i o n , whether i n t h e

e x e r c i s e of t h e c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n t h e bankruptcy should

be annuled, it would have been neces sa ry t o cons ide r

a l l t h e c i rcumstances of the c a s e , t h e i n t c r e s t s of t h e

c r e d i t o r s and of t h e p u b l i c . I t i s n o t sugges ted t h a t

t he bankrupt has been g u i l t y o f any misconduct s i n c e t h e

making o f t he s e q u e s t r a t i o n o r d e r a l though she d i d f i l l i n

h e r s t a t emen t o f a f f a i r s i n a c c u r a t e l y i n c e r t a i n r e s p e c t s .

I am s a t i s f i e d t h a t h e r exp lana t ion a s t o why t h a t occurred

i s t r u t h f u l .

I am s a t i s f i e d t h a t t he bankrupt was s o l v e n t when

t h e s e q u e s t r a t i o n o r d e r was made and t h a t she i s s o l v e n t

now. Although t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r annulment f i l e d by the

bankrupt s t a t e s t h e solvency o f t h e bankrupt a s one o f t he

reasons why the s e q u e s t r a t i o n o r d e r ought n o t t o have bcen

made, t h e argument b e f o r e me proceeded on t h e b a s i s t h a t

solvency was r e l e v a n t t o t h e c x e r c i s e o f any d i s c r e t i o n t o

annul t he bankruptcy l a t h e r than t o t h e q u e s t i o n whether

t h e s e q u e s t r a t i o n o rde r ought n o t t o have bcen made.

If I were t o have reached a conc lus ion t h a t

t he s e q u e s t r a t i o n o r d e r ought n o t t o have been made,

I would have annu l l ed t h e bankruptcy, a l though t h a t would

have been s u b j e c t t o an o r d e r p r o t e c t i n g t h e O f f i c i a l

Receiver f o r t h e f e e s owing t o him i n r e s p e c t of a c t i o n

taken under t h e s e q u e s t r a t i o n o r d e r and s u b j e c t t o an

a p p r o p r i a t e o r d e r f o r c o s t s i n favour of t h e p e t i t i o n i n g

c r e d i t o r of t h e p e t i t i o n and o f t h i s a p p l i c a t i o n .

For t h e s e r ea sons , i n my opin ion the a p p l i c a t i o n

should be disniissed. I o r d e r t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n be

dismissed and t h a t t h e bankrupt pay the c o s t s of t h e

p e t i t i o n i n g c r e d i t o r o f t h j s a p p l i c a t i o n except t h e c o s t s

o f t h e h c a r i n g b e f o r e R i l ey J . on I4 June 1978 . Otherwise

I	make	no	o r d e r a s t o c o s t s .
p:cccd,rg 703:; 0.2 o true c c ~ y cf the
Reesans IY ~ c : ~ ~ ~ " c t herein of his Honour
Rlr. Jusl~cc Lcckl13:t

Trade Prac t ices - Prosecution f o r an offence - Whether

power t o s t a t e a case.

Trade P rac t i ce s Act 1974, ss.53 and 79.

JOHN CRANSTON THOIQSON v. RILEY McKAY PTY. LIMITED

G. Nos. 74 and 78 of 1977

Coram: Franki, Deane and Fisher JJ.

Sydney

22 June 1979

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)

N E W SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY G. Nos. 74 and 78 of 1977

GENERAL DIVISION i

I N THE MATTER of t h e Trade P rac t i ce s

Act 1974 as amended (Sect ions 79,53(a)

and 53 (c ) )

BETWEEN: JOHN CRARSTON THOFPSON

Informant

AND :

- RILEY McKA.Y PTY. LIMITED

Defendant

Coram: Franki , Deane and Fisher JJ.

22 June 1979

Sydney

O R D E R

JUDGES MAKING ORDER: Frenki, Deane and Fisher JJ.

DATE OF ORDER:	22 June 1979.
WHERE MADE:	Sydney.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. Casesstated s t ruck out .

2. Liber ty t o e i t h e r p a r t y t o apply t o t h e r e g i s t r a r

wi th in 14 days i f any order as t o c o s t s i s sought.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA)

NEW SOIJTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	G. Nos. 74 and 78 of 1977 IN THE MATTER of the Trade Practices and 53( c)
GENERAL DIVISION
BETWEEN: JOHN CRANSTON THOMPSON

Informant

AND :

- RILEY McICAY PTY. LIMITED

Defendant

Coram: Franki, Deane and Fisher JJ.

22 June 1979

Sydney

REASONS FOR JUDGI4ENT

FRANK1 J:

These two matters, which were heard together, are

cases stated to the Full Court of this Court by a judge of this

Court in proceedings before him in matters G. No. 74 and G.

No. 78 of 1977.

The proceedings in G. No. 74 of 1977 were instituted by information wherein it was alleged that Riley McKay Pty. Limited, the defendant, was guilty of an offence in that it had contravened s.53(a) of the Trade Practices Act 1974 ("the

Actn). The proceedings in G. No. 78 of 1977 were between

the same parties and i-l; was alleged ir? tne information that

the defendant had contravened s.53(c) of the Act.

Both proceedings a r e c l e a r l y cr iminal proceedings.

It was held by a majori ty of a F u l l Court of t h i s Court

i n judgments del ivered on 21 May 1979 i n matters of

Henaerson v. Pioneer Homes Pty. Limited and Henderson v.

Pioneer Agencies Pty. Llmited t h a t a judge of t h i s Court i n

proceedings a l l eg ing contraventions of s .53(e) and ( g )

of t h e Act had no power t o s t a t e a case f o r t h e considerat ion

of a F u l l Court of th is Court. I n my opinion t h e same

considera t ions apply t o t h e two matters before t h i s Cour-l;

and f o r t h e reasons which I s e t out i n my judgment i n t h e

two cases mentioned above and which I w i l l no t repea t , I

consider t h a t t h i s Court has no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o answer t h e

-

.questions now submitted t o it because t h e learned t r i a l

judge had no power t o s t a t e t h e two cases. For t h i s reason

I propose t h a t t h i s Court should dec l ine t o answer t h e

quest ions submitted t o it i n t h e two cases. I a l s o propose

an order t h a t i f e i t h e r p a r t y wishes t h e Court t o consider

whether it i s appropr ia te t o make any order a s t o c o s t s

t h a t pa r ty must n o t i f y t h e Regis t ra r wi th in four teen days

of t h e de l ive ry of t h i s judgment and t h e Court w i l l then

consider any such appl ica t ion.

I c e r t l f y t h a t t h l s a n d t h a

precedlll2; pages a r e a trlie copy of t he

neasolls

f o r J u d ~ r n e ~ t

here;n of h l s Hollour

Id r .

J u s t l c e

F A , ? W ~ ~

1

I

r blJ.	1 J Li(AwLLi.
l

Associate

l

Dated \'\q

I

I N THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)
1
N E W SOUTH WALES DISTRITT REGISTRY	) G Nos. 74 and 78 of 1977
1
GENERAL DIVISION	1

I N THE NATTER of t h e Trade

P r a c t l c e s Act 1974 a s amended

( S e c t i o n s 79 and 5 3 ( a ) and ( c ) )

BETWEEN : JOHN CRANSTON THOJIPSON

Informant

AND: RILEY h1cKAY PTY. LIMITED

Defendant

CORAM: F r a n k l , Deane and F i s h e r JJ.

Fr iday 22 June , 1976

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

DEANE J. These a r e two c a s e s pu rpo r t ed ly s t a t e d by a Judge of

t h i s Court pursuant t o t h e p r o v l s l o n s of s .25(6) of t h e Fede ra l

Court of Australia Act, 1976. The f i r s t c a s e w a s s t a t e d i n

p roceedlngs instituted by information a l l e g i n g a breach of

s . 5 3 ( a ) of t h e Trade P r a c t l c e s Act 1974. The second c a s e was

s t a t e d ~n proceedings i n s t i t u t e d by t h e same Informant a g a i n s t

t h e same defendant a l l e g i n g a breach of s . 5 3 ( c ) of t h a t Act.

Each c a s e was s t a t e d a t an e a r l y s t a g e of t h e proceedlngs

b e f o r e ev ldence was l e d . By consen t , t h e m a t t e r s were heard

t o g e t h e r i n thi's Cour t .

S e c t i o n 25c6) of t h e Fede ra l Court of Australia Act,

1976 ( " t h e Act") p rov ides , f o r p r e s e n t pu rposes , t h a t t h e Court

c o n s t i t u t e d by a s l n g l e Judge "may s t a t e any c a s e o r r e s e r v e

any q u e s t l o n concerning a m a t t e r w i t h r e s p e c t t o whlch an

appea l would l l e from a judgment of t h e Judge t o a F u l l Court

of t h e Court". A preliminary ques t ion h a s a r l s e n as t o whether

t h e l e a r n e d judge had a u t h o r i t y t o s t a t e - and t h i s Court has

a u t h o r i t y t o hear and determine - e i t h e r case. The resolution

.

of t h a t p re l imina ry q u e s t i o n depends, i n each c a s e , upon whether

t h e ca se concerns , f o r t h e purposes of s . 2 5 ( 6 ) , "a m a t t e r

w i t h r e s p e c t t o whlch an appea l would	l i e from a	judgment	of
t h e Judge t o a F u l l Court".

S e c t l o n 2 4 ( l ) ( a )	of	t h e Act	c o n f e r s upon	t h l s Court
I

j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear and determine "appea ls from judgments of

t h e Court c o n s t i t u t e d by a s i n g l e Judge". The g e n e r a l a p p e l l a t e

j u r i s d i c t i o n s o con fe r r ed p l a i n l y I n c l u d e s a g e n e r a l jurisdiction

t o hea r appea l s from judgments of a s i n g l e Judge i n c r i m i n a l

m a t t e r s . An appea l l ies a g a i n s t s en t ence a t t h e s u i t of e l t h e r

t h e Crown ( o r o t h e r p r o s e c u t o r ) o r t h e accused ( s . 2 8 ( 5 ) ) . An

appea l l l e s a g a l n s t a conviction ( s . 2 8 ( l ) ( c ) ) . That g e n e r a l

a p p e l l a t e jurisdiction i n c r i m i n a l m a t t e r s w i l l , however, be

s u b j e c t io c e r t a i n qualifications and excep t ions a r i s i n g from

t h e f a c t t h a t t h e provisions c o n f e r r i n g t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n must

be cons t rued and r e l e v a n t common law principles. i n t h e con tex t of bo th t h e o r d i n a r y a p p e l l a t e p r o c e s s

Thus, t o t a k e an obvlous

example, t h e g e n e r a l conferring of a u t h o r i t y t o hea r and d e t e r -

mine appea l s from a judgment of a s i n g l e Judge docs no t con fe r

jurisdiction t o ' h e a r and determine an appea l pu rpo r t ed ly broughl

by a s t r a n g e r t o t h e proceedings.

-3-

I n Thompson v . hlastertouch T . V . S e r v i c e P t y . Limited

((1978) 19 A.L.R. 547) , it was h e l d by a F u l l Court of t h l s

Court t h a t an appea l does no t l i e , pu r suan t t o s . 2 4 ( l ) ( a ) of

t h e Act, from a judgment of a c q u i t t a l pronounced by a s l n g l e

Judge i n a c r i m i n a l matter a f t e r a hea r ing on t h e m e r i t s . The

b a s i s of t h a t d e c i s l o n was not a d e n i a l of t h e p l a i n f a c t t h a t

s . 2 4 ( l ) ( a ) con fe r r ed upon t h e F u l l Court j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hear

a p p e a l s from a s i n g l e Judge i n c r l m i n a l m a t t e r s . The b a s i s of

'

t h e d e c i s l o n was t h a t t h e existence of an appea l from a judgment

of a c q u i t t a l i n a c r i m i n a l m a t t e r a f t e r a hea r ing on t h e m e r i t s

no t on ly w a s c o n t r a r y t o a formed no p a r t of t h e o r d i n a r y a p p e l l a t e p r o c e s s bu t

fundamental common law r l g h t of a person who

has been a c q u i t t e d by a c o u r t of competent j u r i s d i c t i o n a f t e r

a hea r ing on t h e m e r i t s t o be spa red t h e renewed jeopardy

involved i n an appea l a g a i n s t t h a t a c q u i t t a l . I t was h e l d t h a t ,

cons t rued i n t h e con tex t of t h a t o r d i n a r y a p p e l l a t e p r o c e s s and

t h a t fundamental common law r i g h t , t h e g e n e r a l r e f e r e n c e t o

"appea ls from judgments of t h e Court" i n s . 2 4 ( l ) ( a ) d i d no t

encompass an appea l from an a c q u i t t a l i n a c r i m i n a l m a t t e r a f t e r

a hea r ing on t h e merits.

Unass i s ted by a u t h o r i t y , I should have been of t h e

view t h a t t h e f a c t t h a t a judgment of a c q u i t t a l i n a c r i m l n a l

m a t t e r a f t e r a hea r ing on t h e merits w a s , as a m a t t e r o f

c o n s t r u c t i o n , t o be excluded from t h e g e n e r a l g r a n t of a p p e l l a t e

j u r i s d i c t i o n conta ined i n s . 2 4 ( 1 ) ( a ) of t h e Act d i d n o t have

t h e consequence of p rec lud ing a c r i m i n a l m a t t e r b e f o r e a s i n g l e

Judge t o which t h a t g e n e r a l grant of a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n was

a p p l i c a b l e f romabeing "a ma t t e r s l t h r e s p e c t t o whlch an appea l

.would l i e from a judgment o f the , Judge to a F u l l Court" w i t h i n

t h e meaning of t h o s e words n s con ta ined i n 8.24(6) of t h e A c t .

The r ea sons which would have l e d me t o t h a t view are g e n e r a l l y

t h o s e expressed i n t h e d i s s e n t i n g judgment of Smi thers J. i n

Henderson v. P ionee r Homes P t y . Limited and Henderson v. Pionee r

Agencies P ty . Limited (un repor t ed : 21 May., 1979). I n Henderson 's

Case	( sup ra )	however,	a m a j o r i t y of	a F u l l Court of	t h i s Court
-

accep ted t h e c o n t r a r y view and h e l d t h a t a s i n g l e Judge of t h i s

.

Court l acked a u t h o r i t y t o s ta te , and t h a t a F u l l Court l acked

j u r i s d i c t i o n t o hea r and determine.. a case o r q u e s t i o n i n a

c r i m i n a l n a t t e r . I t is p l a i n l y u n d e s i r a b l e t h a t t h e r e should

be c o n f l i c t i n g d e c i s i o n s o f t h i s Court on such a . i u r i s d i c t i o n a l

ques t ion . I n t h e c i rcumstances , I c o n s i d e r t h a t . 1 should f o l l o w

t h e d e c i s i o n i n Henderson 's Case ( s u p r a ) and.conclude t h a t t h e

l e a r n e d judge had no a u t h o r i t y t o state - and t h a t t h i s Court

has no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o de te rmine - t h e c a s e s t a t e d i n e i t h e r

of he p r e s e n t natters. .. . -. - . .

I agree w i t h t h e o r d e r s proposed by F rank i J.

I certify +l, r - : nvd -.he +%W

precedlr~:', ppa%L1 m 0,k.ue copy of t.he

Rep-sons fo* 51,&9fl-'..t n e r e l n o f h i s Iio1.W

l!?. ~ u s t l c c &

j , , l - ; 1 311,: r, :;:c .m l;.-=:.-.!. 3f S.,; 3 ( - ) L > , -

l ' K - > ' , ~ . , , l > . , ! t.t:,+

- - - --. -- - - - - - -- .-

LIII:~?!,.): [ -C,- ! l . ~ ~ - , ~ ~ ; : ~ s :C , ll,.:.~ : : : t i .)I! v, L A . , - m m. ! ! i ~ 13:s : L : , l d - . ~ i j l.ed ;:~l,j

-- - -	-	--	---------.LL	---W-
> .

! i : :'lr>rlee: >.~~-r ,c : r , . - . ;,?,-.l> . f L ? 113 12751 I 1,~;s

- -- -- - - -- - -- -

[],:-L, - 5 J.,.,,!.: 1 , - ~L;I : . c - . -m - - .. cc I, L: , I . L : # ~ -.~<:. r:211-,-,:-. L ?<Jre8:> ! \ , 2 t l l

1 - . l . . 1 - : -1; L l , l L . I l l . L . : - : , 7 1:-

l a l s c ,:~)n*;li.-:- I sli?~.lJ f o l l n . , t l ie i;~,~-.~s~rmr~r- ;f " L L ;I ii: ~ ~ C O I ~ T ~

;r. t h e h e n 9 c r s ; ~ ~ c a ~ r _ s .

C111:her-S J . I 1 1 5 I S I 1 I S . i I i S,, far

S L - 3 l 5 . 2 C C ?+.L!:? 2 I . C , C ( S Y t - r 3 t r l ~ L ~ * d t C ) " S 112tteZ-

\;olLc? fc,l',c,~ thzt- :r lr : :rT;:.s:111*~ ; r l , J - n . l ; !A : l~d~zc :zn -.? '-his

L:G,IL-L [ : ,L:~L,:>A t t b b.:? >c :h? 7L,:',::;,l l:,-,>.:.-L c,? i = . d 3 t , a : l ~ l .:ct 13 an

- -- --

;..p;>rc:>r~ a~~ 11;iIrtc.r t h e ??4.~512: L : L = ,1'.d1: ::I,r :~?d<. l :~ , : ;.c tb?

w o u l c l " n2, " 7 - : I I ; i.ldc,l'>e::'c U! ' :-V? 'LI<~QL T(J 3 F811l 1 ; ~ ~ l ~ t " .

C:.<,,?rcely in the c7.rciz :!:zt I-:?,? ,~2;..'1,-1!ts I : , $1-iql -S -] .dge srr:

:-kd ~:-.v,=s! I .];l CC? r i l : l t : i ~ ~ n , a c i f 11 ;l ' nnci cr)r ,cj ur. l v r no;- 1 1 c l r .

I ce.!lfy thal tnls arid the / preqe., 3 p,.c~w are a true copy of the Reasons :or

Juogment of Mr Just~ce F~sher

%2iz- -

Dated: 22'gLlc4 /P'7.